New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/new-trans-pacific-partnership-leak-means-significant-overhaul-for-canadian-law

by walterbell • 11 years ago

160 94 11 years ago

motherboard.vice.com

ZenoArrow2• 11 years ago

When will these idiots learn that DRM doesn't work? How hard will it be for pirates to remove these controls? Assuming a software hack is hard, the option still exists for re-encoding the audio based on capturing the source data in its audio form (whether analog line out or digital line out).

DRM encourages piracy. It means that the DRM-free pirated version has extra value, and punishes those who do not want to break the law.

Hopefully the Canadian government can talk some sense into the other TPP members.

josho• 11 years ago

I think you are underestimating these folks. They are making it a criminal offence to remove Digital restrictions. It is their way of acknowledging that removal of DRM may always be possible (though looking at Apple's track record I think this assertion is questionable). Possibilities aside if you have the potential to spend a year in jail for jailbreaking your own hardware then that's a pretty big disincentive for many folks.

ewzimm2• 11 years ago

Of course, there's always the alternative of listening to music without DRM. There's a lot of good unencumbered music out there, and maybe all these restrictions will help give it a boost. I think the industry message should be as clear as possible: they are selling something dangerous that could land you in jail if you use it with the wrong music player. If they want to spread that message, help them.

kuschku2• 11 years ago

Have you read TPP?

The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime.

norea-armozel3• 11 years ago

That's what I don't grasp about this situation. Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over? Just figure out a new business model. They've had well over a decade and a half to throw enough heads at the problem to figure out how to prevent further decline in their revenues. But it just seems they're as stubborn (if not more so) as an ox when it comes to accepting reality.

ZenoArrow2• 11 years ago

"The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime."

They can't enforce that with music, it's beyond their control. To be able to control that they'd need to be able to restrict access to electronics components, restrict access to electronics education, confiscate all existing audio recording equipment, restrict access to purchase audio recording equipment (including equipment for musicians and the TV/film industry). Furthermore, once the music is DRM free, you'd need to be able to monitor the sharing of citizens around the world, not just through the Internet and private computer networks but through Sneakernets as well (an example of an effective sneakernet: http://www.fastcompany.com/3048163/in-cuba-an-underground-ne... ).

So with all this in mind, what's the point? Those who want DRM-free music are going to be able to get it and hide it from the authorities, and it'll have minimum to no effect on the industries it was designed to protect, and possibly backfire if enough people choose to resist the restrictions.

shmerl• 11 years ago

Most of them know that DRM doesn't prevent lost sales due to piracy (as you said, DRM actually increases lost sales), and they as well know that it's futile to try preventing DRM breaking - it will be broken no matter what.

However DRM + corrupted anticircumvention laws give them various control and ways of writing their own laws without any democratic process. That way they can poison standards (HDCP for instance), ban competition (mobile devices locking) and attack individuals when they really want to (like Geohot case). I.e. they get a lot power as a side effect of DRM.

That's why they push so much for this trash. It's about control and has nothing to do with any piracy. And that's why society should strongly reject DRM and its kin (DMCA-1201 and etc.) as unethical and unacceptable police state approach.

golergka2• 11 years ago

songs purchased through Apple’s iTunes music store—which restricts playback to a handful of computers

This is not true. If you download songs through Apple Music, then they are protected m4p, but if you purchase music, the files are unprotected m4a and play in other software like Traktor or in CDJ's without any problem.

wxs• 11 years ago

Though if I'm not mistaken the unprotected m4a still contains a "digital watermark" (i.e. metadata with your iTunes account info) which this article claims would become illegal to remove.

golergka2• 11 years ago

It contains a tag, not a watermark.

kennywinker• 11 years ago

In the US that may be the case, but in Canada purchases from iTunes are still DRMed.

[edit] - nope, sorry, I'm wrong. Assumed it was still there because I recently got a new machine and had to "authorize" it to play my iTunes purchases. The files, however, play in any audio player, so I guess it's a soft drm?

arrrg• 11 years ago

Videos are still DRMd, as is all the Apple Music stuff (the new streaming service).

So really, only music is DRM free and you can buy other stuff from Apple.

a-priori• 11 years ago

"Behind closed doors and in secret, Canada will have already agreed to make these changes."

Well they can't have agreed to anything yet, seeing as Parliament is dissolved for the October election. And it's currently a dead heat in the polls between the top three parties (Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats), so it's really unclear who is going to form the government.

iclelland• 11 years ago

Apparently they have that covered, too: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-changed-its-el...

It can't be officially signed until after the election, but they can still negotiate. And all three parties, according to the article, are in support of the agreement.

jbeales• 11 years ago

Nitpicking: It can probably be signed, but cannot be ratified. Ratification makes the treaty binding, signing does not, but I imagine it may be very difficult to re-open negotiations after signing.

walterbell4• 11 years ago

From Michael Geist, the law professor quoted in that article, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/08/canadian-government-amend...

"Despite the government’s attempt to grant itself the power to continue to negotiate the TPP during an election campaign, there are reasons to doubt that it can effectively do so. First, while there would seemingly be no problem with ensuring Canada remains at the negotiating table, committing to significant policy changes would go well beyond the description of a caretaker government that should be largely limited to “routine” activities.

.. Without a government mandate, Canadian negotiators simply can’t provide other TPP countries assurances that concessions made today will last beyond October 19th."

walterbell4• 11 years ago

Are ex-officio powers still included in TPP? This would allow computer equipment to be searched/seized by customs officials and law enforcement, without any complaint from rightsholders, e.g. even in the case of fanzines.

From an industry lobby letter, http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Business%20Coalitio...

"Ex-officio authority for law enforcement officials. The TPP should mandate that law enforcement officials have the ability to seize infringing goods even if not specifically named in a warrant and without complaint by a right holder.

Border measures. It is critical that the TPP recognize the importance of preventing counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods from entering the channels of commerce, whether in the domestic market or intended foreign markets. As such, the TPP should provide customs authorities the ability to act ex-officio against imports, exports, goods in-transit, and goods in free trade zones."

From a 2013 analysis, http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzin...

"..in practice, it is rare for the police to commence an investigation without a complaint by the rights holder. However, this situation may change. The draft of the request of the US on Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) 15.5(g) stipulates, "its authorities may initiate legal action ex officio with respect to the offenses described in this Chapter, without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or rights holder."

PythonicAlpha• 11 years ago

Those "partnership" treaties are ultimately used by big corporations and other "big pockets" to annul democratic decisions and processes.

This is seen at the current TTIP negotiations and even more at the results that already in-place treaties have. Look at Mexico and its treaty with the US. The small farmers are the losers of this treaty and corporations are the winners. And not only on the Mexican side are the losers -- also the workers on the US side are losing because work gets cheaper and cheaper and even more important, health and environment standards are undermined!

With all those treaties (which are currently planned or already signed) in-place we have a capitalistic utopia with all the gains of society of decades annulled. Back to the capitalism of robber barons and uncontrolled exploitation (of humans and the nature).

joesmo6• 11 years ago

So they're criminalizing yet another everyday activity that hurts no one and is already protected by civil law. It seems to me the US and its puppet follower states just love the idea of criminalizing things that occur naturally, hurt no one, and in their enforcement and chaos bring in billions of dollars in profit off of ruining people's lives.

This has now been the norm for almost two decades and the movie / music "industry" wonders why many people refuse to give them a penny? The damage has already been done. At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit.

jakejake2• 11 years ago

If you feel that way and don't want to support the industry, the real ethical thing to do is to not watch or listen to their products. Only support artists who are releasing their material under terms that you agree with.

flarg• 11 years ago

I want to disagree with you because what you propose is, at the very least, inconvenient - but you're 100% correct, we should vote with our pocketbooks.

api• 11 years ago

Also important to note that even if you pirate, you are increasing a film or album's viral coefficient and possibly helping verbally promote it. So yeah, if you hate an industry boycott it. Remove it from your life.

klagermkii• 11 years ago

But if you want change isn't defiance generally way more effective at creating it than boycotts? Especially when there is a huge power difference between consumers and the multi-national media conglomerates.

I get the feeling when people promote boycotts as the so-called ethical choice they're basically saying "shhhh, I like the system as it is, why don't you just go do your own thing instead". Even though intellectual property might be viewed as a relatively unimportant issue, I think it only helps protect the status quo to push an ineffectual form of protest.

joesmo6• 11 years ago

I'm already not supporting them financially. Why should I have to also deprive myself of culture as well because of them, especially when I think access to culture is my right? Your argument makes no sense.

maldusiecle• 11 years ago

One problem with this line of reasoning is that even cultural products released on looser terms tend to be captured by corporate behemoths. It's not uncommon for large labels to buy up rights to independently-released music, for instance. The artists may have limited say in this: they licensed the music to a small label, that label went bankrupt, the rights got bought up by a bigger company (which never would have signed the artist in the first place, but now that they're semi-successful there's less risk).

The problem isn't that you can't buy this or that new album without supporting the industry, the problem is that an entire medium is getting sucked up by these huge corporations, who push for copyright limits which make it impossible for that work to ever enter the public domain. "Vote with your wallet" is not a reasonable answer to this kind of situation.

rayiner4• 11 years ago

At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit.

I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products.

Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy eviscerates the criticism against these legal measures by strengthening the idea that people don't really care about freedom, they just want a popular product for free. Every time you pirate a Hollywood movie instead of simply forgoing watching it, you just validate the value and importance of the products Hollywood produces. You just reinforce the idea that these products are so important, it's worth undertaking these extreme measures to protect the companies that produce them.

nitrogen4• 11 years ago

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk

When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the populace, should be expecting a lot more in return.

Eye_of_Mordor• 11 years ago

Perhaps choosing the cheapest legal solution is a better middle road?

pbsd• 11 years ago

Arguing the frivolity of Hollywood movie piracy is not terribly hard. Would you apply the same reasoning to academic research paper and/or textbook piracy?

joesmo6• 11 years ago

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I think access to culture is important and what you're effectively arguing is that I should forego such access because some company somewhere is willing to not only sue me but also throw me in jail for copying some text, music, or video. I'm under no illusions that copying actually causes financial damages, of course--that's silly--but I suppose to some that might be appealing.

I also think that copying has been a huge boon to society and the economy in a scale that we can hardly fathom, let alone measure. It has contributed a lot more than the companies holding the copyright to the education and advancement of people and society. I know a lot of people whose great contributions were started only because they had the ability to copy copyrighted works, especially software. I don't know too many children, for example, that can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on software simply to learn (and no, educational licenses, when they are provided, are not enough). We're talking about whole countries depending on copying for advancement not only of themselves, but of the worldwide economy and welfare: see Romania (http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-mix-of-poverty-and-piracy-t...).

deciplex• 11 years ago

Get back to me when copyright isn't life + 70 fucking years, rayiner, and we can talk about to what degree those who disagree with the Hollywood stance on copyright enforcement mechanisms and cultural-appropriation strategies, have a moral responsibility to opt out of their own culture entirely.

We don't dispute the importance of what Hollywood et al do, we dispute the outsize leverage that gives them in our government and in our laws. And I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to give up a significant portion of their culture while fighting a battle that has, so far, spanned a few generations.

forrestthewoods• 11 years ago

If you're gonna go that far then I'd contest that simply consuming their content is unethical. HBO is more than thrilled with the piracy rates for Game of Thrones. It helps them. A lot.

If you don't want to support "immoral" companies then great. But you don't get claim moral superiority while benefiting from their work. You can't have your cake and eat it.

jpollock• 11 years ago

It seems to be giving everyone in the TPP area "Fair Use" rights. This is a HUGE positive change to Canada, NZ and Australia which haven't had that previously. [1]

However, the TPM section will make every single citizen in New Zealand a criminal. You see, in NZ every DVD player is sold region-free. The salesperson will say "would you like that region free"? Not being stupid, everyone says "yes", and proceeds to buy DVDs/BluRays from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com. [2] Although, it does have this caveat:

"[...]applied where any person is found to have engaged willfully and for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain"

Which might give them a fig leaf to hide behind? Then there's this paragraph which looks like a truck sized hole:

"Each Party may provide certain exceptions and limitations to the measures implementing subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) in order to enable noninfringing uses"

Oh, this is all around "Rights Management Information", basically, any piece of information which says who the authors, performers, producers and owners are. So, a bit of metadata attached to the mp3 is sufficient. Even a foreign key is allowed. [3]

Personally, I want to see the agricultural section, and whether or not parallel imports have been banned.

[1] http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright... Article.GG.Y

[2] http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright... Article QQ.G.10

[2] http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright... Article QQ.G.13 (c)

beloch• 11 years ago

"This is a HUGE positive change to Canada, NZ and Australia which haven't had that previously."

Canada has "fair dealing", which has largely the same effect as "fair use" in the U.S..

nbarAKL• 11 years ago

"You see, in NZ every DVD player is sold region-free."

I'm not sure what you're basing this on. I haven't seen region free DVD players being sold in NZ for the last couple of years.

acd• 11 years ago

I'm old enough to remember the VCR then you were allow to make personal copies. In my country it is still legal todo so for personal use but DRM prohibits one from excercising this legal right.

HDMI HDCP

All easily mitigated with some Chinese hardware that for an hacker is easy to come by but a little harder for the average consumer.

I guess rights holders fear that there will TV 2.0 on the darknet, given how much bandwidth people will have cheaply in the future its quite likely that such a system will emerge.

I guess they fear the Popcorntime of TV which may be vastly to the commercial offers. Pirates does not need to negotiate content agreements just make good software.

I'd like to pay for my TV service but it should be good an innovative.

smeyer• 11 years ago

I'm old enough to remember the VCR then you were allow to make personal copies.

There was analog copy protection on VHS as well.

kaybe• 11 years ago

In Germany you actually pay a tax for empty data storage and the writing machine (as described here [1], and here [2] (with prices in German)).

For example, an external harddrive ≥ 1 TB will cost you 9.00 € in tax. This is supposed to cover personal copies (but does not give you the right to circumvent copy protection).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauschalabgabe

edit: Just saw the prices for mobile phones with touchscreen and over 8 GB storage: 36,00 €! Wow.

flycaliguy2• 11 years ago

I'm excited to see the TPP potentially become an election issue in the recently ignited campaign. Really hoping the NDP brings both this mess and Bill C-51 up front so maybe we can squeeze some democracy into the process.

err4nt4• 11 years ago

From what I've seen, Tom Mulcair is the only Canadian politician that seems to be in favour of the TPP. His criticism of Harper is that Harper is too weak to see it all the way through to a deal (implying an NDP gov't would). Unless he's changed position on that he's the one to avoid on these issues.

smnrchrds• 11 years ago

He is in favour of a deal. He wants to see the text before making any decisions about this deal.

flycaliguy2• 11 years ago

Interesting. I know that the dairy farmer's are going to get a chance to flex their influence over conservative rural seats if things don't fall in their favour. Likewise manufacturing bases are going to be shook up. My take away is not that Mulcair would see these decisions through. More so that he feels Harper has softened Canadian influence so much over the past decade that we don't have the negotiation power to stand up for Canadian interests. I think he will present TPP as leadership test which Harper has failed.

passive• 11 years ago

If you read the Liberal platform, the way the TPP has been developed flies directly in the face of their commitments for running government. It's a great opportunity for them to highlight their platform using a law that will have real applicability to every Canadian. It would also be a way for them to put their money where their mouth is. ;)

antihero• 11 years ago

Why exactly are any governments agreeing to this shit?

err4nt4• 11 years ago

I feel like we are watching the sovereignty of nations fade, and watching the baton pass to corporations. The US has invented this industry of Intellectual Property deliberately as a way to extract money from people by limiting their freedoms. As nations become less powerful and corporations become more powerful, the political landscape is shifting. I believe the US is creating the TPP to try to give as much of an advantage to US corporations in that future landscape where corporations are sovereign over nations. The US is trying to intimidate other countries to join on the threat of being cut out of this new exclusive elite they are trying to create if they don't.

I think people are reluctantly agreeing to it because they are afraid of being outcast from future political influence if this TPP deal does go through without them, and nations become less powerful.

1971genocide• 11 years ago

There is no difference between the US govt and its multinationals.

Why the TPP is being moved so quickly is because of the rise of a competing set of multinationals in china.

I do not think the idea of a nation state is going to go away anytime soon - espeically when you have robust democracy like in germany,india and europe. Multinationals do not invest in education, infrastructure, low cost housing, etc.

The US became an exceptional nation mainly because of its actions in the past when they actually invested in their people that resulted in companies like GM,GE to come into existence in the first place. Now they are just trying to preserve their global hegemony without paying for it.

serge2k• 11 years ago

because the US government is too powerful to ignore and the US government also happens to have been systematically corrupted by corporate interests.

notatoad• 11 years ago

Because it's just one part of a huge deal involving a lot more than copyright. NZ wants to get into the Canadian dairy market. Australia wants to be able to sell sugar to americans. Every country has things they want, and things they don't care about that they're willing to give up in exchange for the things they want. It seems that agreeing to the American's copyright demands mostly falls into the "things we're willing to give up" category.

angersock• 11 years ago

Because, honestly, none of it inconveniences them.

You honestly think a congressman gives two shits about how much it costs to buy a DVD? Or having their internet traffic logged? Or whatever else is backdoored in these deals?

Meanwhile, by kowtowing and allowing this to happen, they win major career points.

Face it--we're not the citizens, we're the product.

cryoshon• 11 years ago

Yeah, it's not great. Drug prices are going to skyrocket to US levels for a lot of people currently enjoying correctly priced (cheap) drugs outside of the US.

The lobbyists are on board with this one.

New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

Related Stories